Barred Justice - An Inquiry Into Policy Gaps Affecting Women Prisoners In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
BARRED JUSTICE: AN INQUIRY INTO POLICY GAPS
AFFECTING WOMEN PRISONERS IN INDIA
Kuheli Mitra, PhD (Law) Research Scholar, School of Law & Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, U.P. Dr Rajvardhan, Assistant Professor, School of Law & Jurisprudence, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, U.P.
ABSTRACT:
The prison system in India, though governed by constitutional and statutory mandates, often fails to meet the specific needs of women prisoners, a minority within the prison population. This research paper aims to analyse the systemic policy gaps that continue to marginalize women prisoners and obstruct their access to justice, rehabilitation, and dignified treatment. The research identifies the absence of gender-sensitive prison policies, lack of adequate healthcare, mental health support, vocational training, and safe custodial conditions as major lacunae that disproportionately affect women inmates. Drawing from both doctrinal research and relevant case laws, the paper demonstrates that existing prison laws and practices reflect a malecentric model that fails to accommodate the unique challenges of female incarceration.
The dependent variable in this study is the impact of the proposed policy reforms, including gender-responsive budgeting, infrastructural rehauls, and rights-based training for prison staff, on the empowerment and reintegration of women prisoners. By critically examining constitutional rights, judicial pronouncements, and statutory provisions such as the Prisons Act, 1894, and Model Prison Manual, this paper seeks to bridge the gap between legal theory and practice in prison reform. Ultimately, it aims to contribute to the development of a more inclusive and humane criminal justice system in India. Keywords: Women Prisoners, Custodial Rights, Gendered Incarceration, Constitutional Law, Policy Gaps.
Introduction: Despite the constitutional promises enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing equality before the law, protection against discrimination, and the right to life and personal liberty women prisoners in India remain among the most vulnerable and overlooked constituencies within the criminal justice system. The prison environment in India continues to operate under a predominantly gender-neutral framework, which in practice often translates into gender-insensitive structures and policies that fail to accommodate the distinct needs of women.
This systemic neglect manifests in multiple forms: inadequate access to healthcare services tailored to women's needs, poor menstrual hygiene facilities, absence of sufficient provisions for women imprisoned with their children, and a complete disregard for mental health care and psychological rehabilitation. Further, the lack of vocational training and educational programs leaves these women without the tools necessary for reintegration, reinforcing cycles of marginalization.
A strikingly high percentage of these women are undertrials many languishing in jails for years
for minor or non-violent offences, victims more of procedural delay than substantive guilt. Most come from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds, which not only shapes their pathways into incarceration but also ensures that imprisonment further entrenches their preexisting vulnerabilities. Their experiences are compounded by intersecting axes of gender, class, caste, and poverty rendering them virtually invisible in policy discourse. Although the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and international instruments such as the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) advocate for gender-responsive prison management, the implementation of these standards in India remains sporadic and largely symbolic.
Moreover, issues like custodial violence, sexual exploitation, and institutional apathy continue to plague the system, with limited avenues for redressal or accountability. This research critically engages with these structural inequities and seeks to evaluate the current legal and policy framework governing women prisoners in India. It aims to highlight the urgent need for a shift towards a gender-sensitive and rights-based approach to incarceration one that
not only safeguards the dignity and liberty of women but also affirms their agency, autonomy, and place in the constitutional vision of justice. Review of Literature: • Nitya Ramakrishnan, In Custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia (2009): Highlights the gendered violence and institutional apathy faced by women inmates. • National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Reports (2019–2023): Provide empirical data on the increasing number of women prisoners, under-trials, and access to legal aid. Research Objectives:
1. To identify the major policy gaps affecting the rights and welfare of women prisoners
in India.
2. To examine the implementation of existing prison laws from a gender-sensitive lens.
3. To propose gender-inclusive reforms in prison administration and legal processes.
4. To analyse the role of judiciary and human rights commissions in shaping prison policy
for women. Research Questions:
1. What are the existing legal provisions relating to women prisoners in India?
2. How effective are these provisions in ensuring dignity, healthcare, safety, and
rehabilitation of women inmates?
3. What are the structural and institutional obstacles to implementing gender-sensitive
prison reforms?
4. What policy changes can ensure equitable treatment of women prisoners
Research Gaps: While various reports and court judgments have acknowledged the plight of women in prisons,
there is a significant gap in state-level implementation and consistent policy reform. There is also insufficient academic engagement with the intersectionality of caste, class, and gender within the prison system. Data Analysis (Doctrinal Method): This study uses doctrinal methodology, analysing constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, landmark judgments, and human rights reports to understand the lived realities of women in prisons. Legal Sources Examined: • Constitution of India: Article 14, 15(3), 21, 39(e) and (f), and 42. • Prisons Act, 1894 • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437 & 438 (bail provisions for women) • Model Prison Manual, 2016 • United Nations Bangkok Rules, 2010 Research Significance: This research is significant for legal scholars, policymakers, prison administrators, and human rights activists.
It sheds light on the necessity of transforming India's prison system through a gendered lens to uphold constitutional morality and international human rights standards. The findings and recommendations aim to serve as a roadmap for holistic prison reforms that include women’s voices and concerns at their core. Body of the Research: I. Constitutional Framework and the Legal Status of Women Prisoners
The Indian Constitution lays down a robust framework that guarantees dignity, equality, and humane treatment to every individual, including those behind bars. Article 141 ensures equality
1 INDIA CONST. art. 14.
before law and equal protection of laws, which extends to all prisoners regardless of gender. Article 15(3)2 permits special provisions for women and children, making space for gendersensitive laws. Article 213, the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, protects the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, proper healthcare, and protection from custodial violence. Despite this, the lived experiences of women prisoners reveal a stark disjunction between constitutional ideals and prison realities. Courts have attempted to bridge this gap through progressive interpretation. In Sheela Barse v.
State of Maharashtra4 (AIR 1983 SC 378), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the humane treatment of women prisoners and emphasized the need for legal aid, speedy trial, and separate facilities, the Supreme Court reiterated that the rights of prisoners, especially women and children, cannot be ignored under the garb of discipline or incarceration. The Court directed that female inmates must be provided legal aid, informed of their rights, and protected from arbitrary detention and custodial violence. Also, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy5, the Court affirmed that prisoners are not stripped of their fundamental rights and held the State liable for custodial deaths caused due to negligence or torture. This case fortified the application of Article 21 within prison walls.
However, systemic inertia, infrastructural neglect, and bureaucratic indifference have continued to deny incarcerated women their constitutional rights, making these guarantees merely aspirational in practice. II. Legislative Landscape and Structural Policy Gaps
The primary legislation governing Indian prisons, the Prisons Act, 1894, is an archaic colonial statute that does not reflect contemporary human rights standards or the specific needs of women. While the Model Prison Manual, 2016 introduced significant gender-sensitive provisions including separate enclosures for women, pre-natal and post-natal care, and vocational training the manual remains non-binding and inconsistently implemented across states. The Supreme Court in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons6, observed that most
2 INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl. 3.
3 INDIA CONST. art. 21.
4 Sheela Barse v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 654.
5 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, (2000) 5 SCC 712.
6 In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2019) 2 SCC 435.
prisons in India suffer from severe infrastructural deficiencies, including poor sanitation, overcrowding, and lack of gender-sensitive facilities. It directed states to adhere to minimum standards and focus on the rehabilitation of inmates. Major Policy Gaps Identified:
1. Lack of Comprehensive Healthcare: Very few prisons have full-time female medical
officers. Routine health checkups, access to sanitary napkins, and treatment for gynaecological disorders are often neglected. Mental health is worse with little to no counselling support. In R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P.7, the apex court directed state governments to improve the infrastructure for children and mothers, yet compliance remains limited to certain metro jails.
2. Absence of Gender-Responsive Infrastructure:
Only a handful of jails have dedicated facilities for pregnant women or mothers with infants. Many women are housed in overcrowded barracks with no privacy. Toilets and bathing areas are often inadequate or unsafe. These conditions violate Article 39(e)8 and (f)9, which direct the State to ensure health and development of women and children.
3. Deficiency of Trained Female Staff
4. Women prisoners frequently report harassment and neglect by male guards. As per the
NCRB 202210, women make up less than 10% of total prison staff. This shortage violates not only human rights norms but also the UN Bangkok Rules, which recommend that women prisoners should be supervised by female staff.
III. Mental Health, Social Isolation, and Psychological Abuse
Women in prison are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicidal ideation, especially if they are victims of domestic or sexual violence. A 2021 report by the
7 R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 422.
8 INDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. e.
9 INDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. f.
National Crime Report Bureau, Statistics,
CRIMES
IN
INDIA,
(2022), https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1701607577CrimeinIndia2022Book1.pdf.
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) notes that mental healthcare is “virtually absent” in many Indian jails. Trauma is compounded by social abandonment, especially for women with dependent children or those accused of crimes like infanticide or adultery, which carry societal stigma. Unlike male prisoners, women are less likely to receive visits or support from families. Moral policing by jail authorities, emotional isolation, and lack of access to education only worsen their condition. The Supreme Court’s observation in Shabnam v. Union of India11 highlights the need for mental health care, family visits, and access to legal support even for death row convicts. The Court emphasized that even a convict’s dignity must be respected till the last moment, especially for female prisoners.
Studies indicate that incarcerated women often come from socioeconomically disadvantaged and abusive backgrounds, leading to cumulative trauma that remains unaddressed in prison. A
2018 National Commission for Women (NCW) report observed that many women were
imprisoned without prior mental health screening, and only a handful of jails had trained psychiatric professionals. Furthermore, there is a systemic failure to differentiate between mentally ill inmates and those with behavioral issues arising from prison conditions. Psychological abuse also takes subtle institutional forms. Women inmates frequently report being gaslighted or dismissed by prison staff when expressing distress. Solitary confinement, often used as a disciplinary measure, disproportionately impacts women with prior trauma histories, exacerbating dissociation, paranoia, and self-harm tendencies. The lack of gender-specific programming in prisons—such as trauma-informed therapy, group counseling, or reproductive health counseling—results in unmet psychosocial needs.
Most jails lack even basic facilities for menstrual hygiene, which further affects dignity and emotional wellbeing. Also, the prison environment often replicates patriarchal power structures. Women prisoners report higher instances of sexual harassment by male guards or through indirect coercion such
11 Shabnam v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 702.
as denying access to facilities unless certain favors are granted. Mechanisms for complaint and redressal are either non-existent or deeply flawed, making accountability elusive. Importantly, the absence of trained female counselors and support staff often deters women from disclosing abuse or psychological suffering. The intersectionality of caste, religion, and sexuality further compounds marginalization, with Dalit and queer women experiencing deeper stigmatization and isolation within the prison hierarchy. IV. Custodial Violence and Sexual Harassment
The vulnerability of women prisoners is heightened by their dependency on male prison administrators. Although the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 applies to prisons, most correctional facilities lack an effective Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Several instances of custodial rape and harassment have been documented by human rights commissions and NGOs. A well-known case is that of Soni Sori12, a tribal teacher and human rights activist, who was tortured and sexually assaulted in custody in 2011. Despite such incidents, accountability remains rare due to lack of independent oversight. In Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra13 the infamous Mathura rape case the Court’s acquittal of the accused triggered national outrage and led to critical amendments in rape laws.
The case exposed the vulnerability of women in custody and the deep-rooted patriarchal biases in law enforcement. Similarly, in Sheela Barse v. Union of India14, the Court took cognizance of police apathy and emphasized the need for legal representation and periodic judicial oversight to prevent sexual abuse of female detainees. Moreover, the Vishaka Guidelines15 and subsequent judgments have not been integrated into prison administration in a meaningful way. The absence of grievance redressal mechanisms perpetuates a culture of silence and fear. The problem is further aggravated by the opaque functioning of prisons, where access to external monitoring is minimal. Despite directives by the National Human Rights Commission
12 Soni Sori and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 14 SCC 658.
13 Tukaram and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143.
14 Sheela Barse v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 654.
15 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
(NHRC) and the Supreme Court, routine surprise inspections by judicial magistrates or independent bodies are often either symbolic or completely ignored. This lack of transparency emboldens perpetrators and isolates victims. Custodial violence also disproportionately affects women from marginalized communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, religious minorities, and transgender persons. These individuals face not only sexual abuse but also casteist slurs, forced labour, and denial of access to essential facilities, all under the threat of further violence. Their complaints are often met with disbelief or retribution. The underrepresentation of women in prison staff, especially in positions of authority, exacerbates the situation. Many prisons do not meet the mandated minimum quota for female staff as per the Model Prison Manual, 2016.
This results in male officers having unauthorized and unsupervised access to female wards an explicit violation of prison regulations. Additionally, the use of medical procedures as tools of violence continues to be a disturbing concern. Invasive and unscientific practices such as the “two-finger test,” though legally barred by the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013)16, have not been fully eliminated in custodial settings, especially in rural or poorly supervised prisons. Rehabilitation mechanisms for survivors of custodial sexual abuse remain largely absent. There is no structured program for trauma counselling, witness protection, or legal aid that functions independently of prison authorities thus compromising the trust of victims in the system itself.
Technological safeguards, such as the installation of CCTV cameras in all custodial facilities as mandated by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh 17, are either nonfunctional or poorly maintained, and footage is rarely preserved or made available during inquiries. V. The Plight of Children in Prisons
The Plight of Children in Prisons The condition of children residing in Indian prisons alongside their incarcerated mothers
16 Lillu and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643.
17 Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 184.
presents a pressing humanitarian and legal concern. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data for 2023, over 2,000 children are currently living in such circumstances across the country. These children, although not accused or convicted of any crime, are subjected to an environment that can significantly hinder their mental, emotional, and physical development. Despite the Supreme Court's progressive directions in R. D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which called for child-friendly facilities within prisons, the implementation of these guidelines remains highly inconsistent across different states and prison complexes. One of the major concerns is the lack of essential facilities such as crèches and access to formal education within many prison premises.
This situation directly violates the mandates of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which guarantees free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14. Without proper schooling and early childhood care, these children are denied the opportunity to grow in a nurturing and intellectually stimulating environment. Additionally, nutrition and sanitation in prisons often fall below acceptable standards, compromising the health and well-being of young children who require special care and hygienic surroundings for healthy development. Another deeply troubling practice is the abrupt separation of children from their mothers once they cross the age of six. This arbitrary cutoff, without adequate psychological preparation or transitional care, can cause severe trauma and emotional distress.
The sudden severance of the child-mother bond not only impacts the child's sense of security but also disrupts their social and emotional growth. India, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), is obligated to uphold the principle of the "best interests of the child" in all administrative and judicial processes. However, the current prison management system often overlooks this foundational principle. The lack of child-centric policies and the failure to prioritize the unique needs of children in custodial settings amount to a violation of both international commitments and constitutional guarantees under Article 21, which assures the right to life and dignity. VI. Intersectional Discrimination and Invisibility of Marginalized Women
Incarcerated women in India face a multifaceted form of discrimination, with caste, religion, and class serving as critical factors that exacerbate their struggles within the prison system. Among the most vulnerable groups are Dalit, Adivasi, and Muslim women, who experience
compounded marginalization not only in society but also within the criminal justice system. These women are disproportionately represented among under-trials—individuals who are incarcerated without trial—often because they lack access to quality legal representation and the financial resources necessary to secure bail. Their socio-economic position, combined with systemic biases in law enforcement and judicial processes, leads to their continued detention without proper legal recourse. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, Dalit women prisoners frequently face significant barriers to receiving court hearings due to deeply ingrained systemic discrimination. These women are often deprived of timely legal assistance, as the legal aid systems are underfunded and underresourced, leaving them vulnerable to prolonged incarceration without trial.
This lack of access to justice not only violates their fundamental rights but also reflects the entrenched inequities within the prison system. The invisibility of these marginalized women in policymaking further compounds their struggles. The absence of intersectional policy frameworks that take into account their caste, class, and religious identities means that the specific needs and experiences of Dalit, Adivasi, and Muslim women are often overlooked. There is a glaring lack of affirmative action in key prison committees, grievance boards, and parole bodies to ensure that these women’s voices are heard and represented. This systemic exclusion from decision-making processes perpetuates their invisibility and neglect in prison reform policies.
The failure to address the intersectionality of discrimination faced by these women not only deepens their marginalization but also undermines the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity enshrined in the Indian Constitution. To address these disparities, it is crucial to adopt intersectional policy frameworks that consider the specific vulnerabilities of marginalized women in prison, ensuring that they have equal access to legal representation, fair trials, and opportunities for rehabilitation. Only then can the prison system begin to move toward a more just and inclusive model of incarceration. VII. Rehabilitation and Reintegration: The Forgotten Phase
Rehabilitation and reintegration are often the most neglected aspects of the prison system, particularly for incarcerated women. While the focus of criminal justice policies tends to be on punishment and deterrence, the reformation of offenders is crucial for their successful
reintegration into society. Unfortunately, rehabilitation programs for women in Indian prisons are scarce, underfunded, and insufficiently designed to address their specific needs. Vocational training, where available, tends to be gender-stereotyped, offering courses like tailoring and handicrafts, which are not always market-competitive or aligned with the diverse interests and capabilities of incarcerated women. This limited scope for skill development severely restricts the opportunities for these women to rebuild their lives after release. The issue is compounded by the societal stigma faced by women who have been incarcerated. Upon release, many of these women find it difficult to reintegrate into society due to negative public perceptions and the lack of adequate support systems.
Without access to stable housing, employment, or social acceptance, many women are pushed into homelessness, while others may turn to crime again, leading to recidivism. This cyclical pattern of incarceration undermines the very purpose of the criminal justice system, which should aim for the rehabilitation of offenders, rather than their mere punishment. In Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court powerfully emphasized that the aim of punishment should be reformation, not retribution. It called for meaningful vocational and educational opportunities for prisoners during incarceration, in order to help them develop the skills necessary for reintegration into society. However, despite this judicial pronouncement, the reality in Indian prisons is far from ideal.
There are no dedicated government schemes for the post-prison reintegration of women, and even NGOs that work with former prisoners often lack the funds, infrastructure, and long-term frameworks needed to provide sustained support. This lack of institutional support and failure to address the rehabilitative needs of incarcerated women defeats the reformatory goal of punishment under Section 4 of the Prisons Act, which explicitly states that the aim of imprisonment should be the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. By neglecting this crucial phase, the criminal justice system inadvertently perpetuates the cycle of marginalization and criminality among women, rather than offering them the tools they need to reintegrate into society as productive, dignified individuals.
To achieve a truly rehabilitative system, it is imperative to invest in comprehensive, gendersensitive programs and post-release support for incarcerated women.
Suggestions and Way Forward: Addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by women prisoners in India necessitates a holistic approach that encompasses legal reforms, infrastructural enhancements, and societal reintegration strategies. The following recommendations are proposed to bridge the identified policy gaps:
1. Legislative Reforms
i. Modernize the Prisons Act, 1894: Revise this archaic legislation to incorporate gender-specific provisions, ensuring alignment with contemporary human rights standards and the unique needs of women prisoners. ii. Implement the Model Prison Manual, 2016: Mandate the adoption of this manual across all states to standardize prison conditions, with particular emphasis on women's facilities.
2. Infrastructure and Facilities
i. Establish Dedicated Women’s Prisons: Increase the number of exclusive women’s prisons to reduce overcrowding and ensure privacy. As per the NCRB
2022 report, only 34 women jails exist across India, accommodating just 17.8% of
female prisoners ii. Enhance Childcare Facilities: Develop comprehensive childcare programs within prisons, including crèches and educational facilities, to support the 1,537 women prisoners accompanied by 1,764 children as of December 2022. iii. Improve Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM): Ensure the provision of sanitary products and proper disposal mechanisms. CHRI report of 2023 highlighted significant deficiencies in MHM practices across women's prisons. iv. Provide Comprehensive Healthcare Services: Deploy full-time female medical officers and mental health professionals to address the specific health needs of women inmates.
3. Legal and Judicial Measures
i. Expedite Undertrial Cases: Implement fast-track courts and regular review mechanisms to address the high percentage (76.33%) of undertrial women prisoners. ii. Ensure Legal Aid Accessibility: Strengthen legal aid services within prisons to assist women in navigating the legal system effectively.
4. Rehabilitation and Reintegration
i. Develop Vocational Training Programs: Introduce skill development initiatives tailored to market demands, facilitating post-release employment opportunities. ii. Establish Reintegration Support Systems: Create halfway homes and support networks to assist former inmates in transitioning back into society, addressing stigma and facilitating social acceptance.
5. Monitoring and Accountability
i. Implement Oversight Mechanisms: Establish independent monitoring bodies to oversee prison conditions and address grievances, ensuring transparency and accountability. ii. Conduct Regular Audits: Perform periodic assessments of prison facilities and practices to ensure compliance with established standards and identify areas for improvement. Conclusion: The Indian criminal justice system stands at a critical juncture where it must confront and overcome the deeply entrenched gender biases within its penal framework. The prevailing uniformity in the treatment of prisoners, while appearing neutral on the surface, often translates into structural injustice for women, whose distinct socio-biological realities and vulnerabilities are routinely overlooked. A gender-blind prison policy, therefore, does not ensure equality it perpetuates discrimination under the guise of fairness.
There is an urgent need for a paradigm shift: from retribution to rehabilitation, and from uniformity to equity. This demands legislative will and administrative resolve to institutionalize gender-sensitive reforms that are not merely advisory but binding in nature. Such reforms must address the infrastructural deficiencies that disproportionately affect women prisoners such as inadequate healthcare, lack of maternity care, insufficient provisions for children residing with incarcerated mothers, and the absence of vocational and psychological support systems aimed at reintegration. True justice cannot be achieved if it remains confined behind the iron bars of procedural rigidity, especially for women who are doubly punished first by the law and then by a system indifferent to their lived realities.
It is imperative that we recognize the incarceration of women not just as a penal issue but as a constitutional concern involving the right to dignity, equality, and humane treatment under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Empowering women prisoners, therefore, is not simply an act of benevolence or reform it is a constitutional obligation. Only when our prison system begins to reflect the principles of substantive equality and restorative justice can we truly claim to be a society governed by the rule of law, compassion, and fairness.
References:
1. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
2. INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl. 3.
3. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
4. Sheela Barse v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 654.
5. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, (2000) 5 SCC 712.
6. In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2019) 2 SCC 435.
7. R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 422.
8. INDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. e.
9. INDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. f.
10. National Crime Report Bureau, Statistics, 1 CRIMES IN INDIA, (2022),
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1701607577Cri meinIndia2022Book1.pdf.
11. Shabnam v. Union of India and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 702.
12. Soni Sori and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2011) 14 SCC 658.
13. Tukaram and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143.
14. Sheela Barse v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 654.
15. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
16. Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287.
17. Prisons Act, 2015, § 4, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1894 (India).
18. Nitya Ramakrishnan, In Custody: Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia
(2009): Highlights the gendered violence and institutional apathy faced by women inmates.
19. Lillu and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643.
20. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 184.